A Hindu Monotheist

Hinduism, according to Dr. Farquhar, is essentially polytheism, though Hindus today, as modern men, "cannot acknowledge themselves as polytheists, but must represent themselves as worshipping only the one God of the Universe." The Samkarite proper is a monist and his one impersonal Supreme cannot be an object of worship; in so far as he does offer worship, he recognises not one, but five deities, Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, Surya and Devi. The Vaishnavite is neither a monist nor a monotheist. Monism is not monotheism and can be called so only by a gross abuse of language. The monist "cannot by any stretch of imagination be conceived as a monotheist."¹

A detailed examination of Dr. Farquhar's views would be neither interesting nor profitable. It is, however, proposed to invite attention to one great Hindu at least who was a monist as well as a monotheist and in whose case the fusion was not brought about by modern science or philosophy or the evangelising influence of Christianity. Appayya Dikshita belonged to the sixteenth century A. D. He was of a period long prior to the theistic movements known as the Brahma Samaj, the Prarthana Samaj and so on. Modern science and modern philosophy were only then being inaugurated in Europe by the Bacons and Descartes. Christian influence of a kind there may have been in this country, and it may not be possible to prove that it counted for nothing in Appayya's system; but he himself has little difficulty in tracing all his ideas to Hindu originals whereon he exclusively relies for support.

Appayya was a devout adherent of the Samkara School. His Kalpataru Parimala is a commentary on a commentary on Samkara's Bhashya. His Siddhanta-lesa-samgraha is a masterly treatise on the conclusions of non-dualism (what Dr. Farquhar, like many others, elects to call monism). He is also the author of a commentary on a theistic school of philosophy–the Siva Advaita of Srikantha. His monistic leanings are so great that he repeatedly attempts to make out Srikantha himself to be a monist. And yet Appayya is a monotheist as well; and his monotheism, in the circumstances, cannot but be of interest.

Appayya was a devotee of Siva. This Siva is not one of the three murtis ordinarily recognised, but transcends them all. He occupies a position closer to the impersonal Brahman than to the three deities Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra. Brahman is free from the three gunas (the constituents of matter) Sattva, Rajas and Tamas; Siva is associated with them, as it were; the three deities are affected by the gunas in such fashion that Brahma is characterised by Rajas, Vishnu by Sattva and Rudra by Tamas. These three, in conformity with their nature, set about creating, preserving or destroying. Siva is above both the constituents and the functions; but He is the controller of them all. He is higher than the finite self, that stands over against and struggles with matter; He is pradhana kshetrajna pati, gunesah, lord of matter and of the finite self, controller of the constituents of matter. This Being is the object of the individual's devotion. The three murtis may and do function in that capacity; and the worship of them is legitimate enough. But since they are limited, the results of their worship are also limited. Even that way, release comes about ultimately, but only gradually and by stages, while the worship of this fourth Being, Siva, leads directly to release. Release itself, until the world is finally destroyed, takes the form of the attainment of the nature of Siva; it is not identification with Brahman, for this can come about only when there are no other souls in bondage. As long as these exist, that is as long as the world exists, the attainment of Sivatva alone is release. The entire position will now be substantiated by reference to his works.

Addressing Siva in the Siva-tattva-viveka, he says- "Though beyond the gunas, yet in combination with Maya, Thou dost appear as if possessing gunas, taking on the form of the blue-throated, three-eyed being, accompanied by Amba as Thy Consort, going about under the names Siva, Bhava and so on, and controlling the whole Universe inclusive of Hari, Hara and Brahma" (Verse 13). In the Ratna-Traya-Pariksha, he says the Supreme Being undergoes a process of self-division, as it were, into dharma and dharmin, the Attribute and what possesses the Attribute. The latter is the Supreme Divinity, Siva; the Attribute again takes on a two-fold form and manifests itself as Devi and Vishnu. "The dharmin functions as the operative cause in respect of the five-fold activity of creation and so on, pertaining to the universe. The dharma taking on the form of male, holds the position of the material cause of all the worlds; and taking on a female form, becomes the divine consort of its own substrate, the prime efficient cause. The dharma, though thus distinguished, is said by those who know the Scriptures to belong to the constitution of Brahman, as much as the dharmin." (Verse III). When the One Supra-Personal Subject undergoes a process of self-division into Substance and Attribute, it is idle to make out that the Real is Substance alone or Attribute alone. We have really three gems (Ratna Traya) Siva, Sakti and Vishnu. Each of them is God; none of these is a product of God in the sense in which the material world is, and individuals are supposed to be. They are three, but three in one. If this is polytheism, Trinitarian Christianity is polytheistic.

Ardent Saivite that he is, Appayya does not make light of devotion to Vishnu. "All modifications like ether and the rest are but transformations of that Prime Person (Vishnu); all migratory beings up to Brahma are, but parts of Him. Only by reaching to Him can that place be attained which belongs to the Immortal primaeval blissful Being, who is Light, who is worshipped by the sons of the Immortal, the gods among gods, the ancient ones." (Ibid, Verse V). "That mode of meditation which holds to Samkara and has Saguna Brahman for its object is the bestower of the shining abode; as for the other modes of meditation, united to the Lotus-eyed One as to Primal Sakti, they lead to gradual attainment of fruit and are means of attaining to that (first-mentioned mode of meditation) (Ibid, Verse VII). Elsewhere, in the Ananda Lahari, combating the view that Vishnu is no better than a finite self (a jiva), he says: "Our tongues refuse to declare that Sri Narayana, the Adorable, is a Jiva, on the strength of some obscure hymns to be found in nooks and corners . . . . Our heads would burst into a hundred fragments, if we did so. Thence would rise treason to the Vedas and those who follow them, and also to the Devatas" (Commentary on verse 35).

The position that release is the attainment of Saguna Brahman (i.e., Siva) is set out at great length in the Siddhanta-lesa-samgraha and the Siva-advaita-nirnaya. The argument is too lengthy to allow of quotation or reproduction. The author holds that Saguna Brahman is the original image and that the jivas are the same image reflected in nescience. With the cessation of nescience in one case, that particular reflection would get merged in the original; but so long as nescience continues for others, the Lord will still be reflectable, i.e., he will be an image; and until he is free from that possibility, release cannot be identity with Nirguna Brahman. Such ultimate release can come about only with the redemption of all and the complete destruction of nescience.

It needs little reflection to show us that a monist may be a monotheist as well, and that monotheism is consistent with the recognition of more than one aspect of the Deity. Neither in his monism nor in his monotheism is Appayya intolerant; for, in the best spirit of Hindu Philosophy, he recognises varying grades of spiritual capacity. There are those who consider moral life to be the ultimate; to these, goodness (Sattva) would be the highest object of adoration; they might thus be led to the worship of Narayana, the embodiment of Sattva. Others may recognise the claims of the moral life but yet consider it to be an appearance, not as such and in itself real; to such, comes the vision of the Saguna Brahman united to gunas as it were, but really other than they.

Incidentally one gets an insight into the only possibility of success for syncretic movements. No idea or ideal can be discarded or condemned; they must all find appropriate places in a graded scheme of values, culminating in the highest value recognised by the syncretist. Such a scheme, for all its apparent artificiality, has a greater possibility of commanding loyalty than condemnation or even sympathetic criticism. Appayya, and before him Srikantha, were among those who realised this profound truth. And the grasp of that is of vital importance in any scheme for mutual understanding and co-operation among religions. It is a hopeful sign that the Jerusalem Conference seems to have realised this. "We would repudiate", says the Report of that Conference,² "any symptoms of a religious imperialism that would desire to impose beliefs and practices on others, in order to manage their souls in their supposed interests." If the authors of this Report need practical guidance, they cannot do better than turn to the syncretism of Appayya Dikshita.